Beginners: Do Not Buy The D40/D40x

[ANDS!]

I mean, it's a no-brainer that my camera vs a new $3,000 DSLR is going to suck.

Your camera does not suck. It is not as full featured as a D300 or D3; but either in the hands of a capable photographer with some good glass is going to produce incredible results.

Yea, this thread is weird - and a little disappointing.

 

[jteknet]

Your camera does not suck. It is not as full featured as a D300 or D3; but either in the hands of a capable photographer with some good glass is going to produce incredible results.

Yea, this thread is weird - and a little disappointing.

Suppose I picked the most disappointed thread on the forum to read / reply to as my first thread seeing as I just bought my brand new camera and I'm in love with it.

I just got back from a three hour basketball game and took 475 pictures. I'm going to use Aperture to weed out my rejections (which I still don't delete) then I'm going to keep my ultra-clear "normal" quality D40 pictures. But, I'm hijacking this thread. I might make a new one with a couple pictures I took if I find some that are interesting. Might just wait for something better / creative to take pictures of and post them suckers. =)

Thanks for cheering me up, letting me know that my camera does, indeed, not suck.

 

[Tayfun]

mind you that's why the Pentax bodies are A LOT heavier than the D40. . .

I'm happy with my D40x, probably move into photography as a full fledged hobby because of it. . .I find myself framing pictures in my head (that would look hot, that wouldn't, oh if I only had my camera). . and I'm travelling a lot because of my job and have now included my D40x as my "other" essential in my carryon (along side my ipod, etc.!!)

it serves it's purpose, and I'll be able to sell the body in 2-4 years for a D80 or whatever the hell else Nikon creates at that point and STILL use my lenses. . .

Just sucks that any descent lens with AF-S or HSM (Sigma) starts at $370 at the cheap end up towards $1500, but I'm okay with that since I'll be sticking with Nikon until the end. . .

As my opinion the major advantage of Canon and Nikon is their large lens choice availbility. But this is not true for D40/40x. Actually a little larger and heavier body will be a plus for me that changes to users thought but normally no one will choose a limited lens availibility. Pentax is a choice with limited lens availibity but Shake reduction + good sealing + Dust Reduction are all extras and if compared by D40/40x lens availibility is maybe more. No reason for D40/40x, Pentax is better choice.

 

[Joves]

While Im no fan of the D40, I would not go so far as to say it is a do not buy. For some people it is great. And it is a viable step up from P&S cameras. It is faster on start up and, there are a few non-Nikor alternatives out there. If Im not mistaken the Tamron AF Di IF lenses are compatable. If I owned a D40 I would look at some of those and, see if that is the case. The Tamrons are not that bad for a good price.They have their own internal motors so they do run off of the contacts. While some of you may not like the D40 much like myself, there are others that will be quite happy with it. Atleast the Nikon kit lenses are better that some other brands kits. I still use my 18-55 that came with my D50. It is a fairly good little lense. What drew me in here was the title. It was just asking to be flamed.

 

[Coldow91]

If Im not mistaken the Tamron AF Di IF lenses are compatable.

Can some one verify this? I would be interested in whether this is tru or not. (Joves-I am not questioning what you said I am just asking for verification)

 

[Joves]

Can some one verify this? I would be interested in whether this is tru or not. (Joves-I am not questioning what you said I am just asking for verification)

I know. That is why I suggest going to the local store and, mounting it to see. But I do know they have an internal motor. Or better yet go to http://tamron.com and, see or cantact them.

 

[jols]

I am posting this thread here so I can reference it to people in the future, since the 'what DSLR should I buy' question comes up every single day here in the beginners forum.

Many beginners see the D40 and D40x cameras at a great price point, and think "man, that sounds like a great price for a DSLR."

It is a great price.

But.

There is a big-time catch with these camera models that leads me to advise you to not consider buying one of them as your first DSLR.

I own a D40, and due to the lens limitations, I cannot recommend buying either it or a D40x to anybody who wants to take their photography seriously, or to expand their photographic equipment collection in the future.

The fact that the D40/D40x series can only autofocus with lenses that are Nikon AF-S series or some of the Sigma line is a non-starter for me... You probably already know this, but the D40/D40x do not contain an autofocus motor in the camera body. lenses that need the camera body's motor to focus simply will not focus on these two cameras. It is beyond me why Nikon did this, it seems very silly to me.

Generally (and yes, this is a wild generalization) the Nikon branded lenses with internal focus motors (Nikon calls them AF-S) are the more expensive and higher end products. There are a couple of inexpensive lenses (the kit lens, the 55-200 VR telephoto come to mind), but many of the other inexpensive lenses like the under $200 70-300D, the $100 wonderful little 50 mm f/1.8 and a bunch of very inexpensively priced used AF lenses simply will not focus on these cameras.

I purchased my D40 after my two D80's just to have a spare body around, and to shoot macro with my 105 VR. It does do a good job at that, it is very annoying that half the lenses I own won't work on it.

When you get ready to move up in lens, with the D40/D40x series you are looking at either buying an inexpensive telezoom of limited potential (the 55-200 VR) or spending a boatload of money on glass.

In the end, if you plan on owning a DSLR system, don't limit yourself from the start. If you don't plan on adding lenses, then there really isn't much of a point in buying a DSLR over some of the really good point and shoots out there.

I don't really care that much for the Canon XT/XTI series either, but that is more because they feel clunky and cheaply made to me and the kit lens is not nearly as good as the one Nikon sells... but at least they can use the full range of lenses in the Canon line, and nobody should EVER decide which DSLR camera family to adopt based solely on the quality (or lack thereof) of a kit lens.

The D40's have excellent picture quality, and the 1/500th of a second flash speed make it a strange but wonderful choice for shooting flash Friday Night Lights photography (who would have thought that seasoned pros would be using D40's to do this...)

Still, the lens limitations are severe, and make these to cameras (IMHO) not recommendable.

I think the D80 is an excellent camera if you are looking for a new Nikon, and the D50 (basically a very similar camera to the D40 without the lens limitations) is a great choice for a starter used DSLR.

what a load of crap!!!

 

[Helen B]

As my opinion the major advantage of Canon and Nikon is their large lens choice availbility. But this is not true for D40/40x. Actually a little larger and heavier body will be a plus for me that changes to users thought but normally no one will choose a limited lens availibility. ...

More types of Nikon lenses can be mounted on the D40 and D40x than on any other Nikon digital camera, including the D300 and D3, as far as I know. The only thing is that they may be manual focus, or manual focus and manual exposure, only. This is not always a problem.

Best,
Helen

 

[petey]

Everyone should own a D40.

 

[Joves]

Everyone should own a D40.

No thanx! Im saving my pennies for a D3.

 

[jols]

No thanx! Im saving my pennies for a D3.

well you would wouldnt you as you already have a d80.

what a pointless post

 

[Garbz]

Wow 4 trolls within an hour.

More types of Nikon lenses can be mounted on the D40 and D40x than on any other Nikon digital camera, including the D300 and D3, as far as I know. The only thing is that they may be manual focus, or manual focus and manual exposure, only. This is not always a problem.

Nearly. The D40/x can indeed hold just as many different lenses as the D3 and D300. The only exception to the Nikon rule is the D50 as far as I can remember as it didn't have the AI connection ring and thus required lenses with a CPUs in them (basically any lens made after the early 90s).

I personally don't see why people are still defending the D40 in all terms. Yes you can use nearly all lenses, yes you can manual focus. But the point is when you spend $600 on a camera you want the option to autofocus. Especially with the tiny and dark viewfinder which has absolutely no split prism and is nearly impossible to get in focus like on the D40. It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens.

 

[Alex_B]

Wow 4 trolls within an hour.

Well spotted

But this easily happens when people start discussing camera hardware, ...

 

[Alex_B]

but I might remind you all that this thread has some constructive elements ... part of the sabbath - Helen discussion

 

[Helen B]

Yes, the news that you can fit a cut-down K3 screen into a D40 could be useful. I haven't forgotten about it - I'll post the details after the holidays.

In answer to my comment about being able to mount more types of Nikon lenses on the D40 and D40x than on the D300 and D3:

Nearly. The D40/x can indeed hold just as many different lenses as the D3 and D300. The only exception to the Nikon rule is the D50 as far as I can remember as it didn't have the AI connection ring and thus required lenses with a CPUs in them (basically any lens made after the early 90s).

I personally don't see why people are still defending the D40 in all terms. Yes you can use nearly all lenses, yes you can manual focus. But the point is when you spend $600 on a camera you want the option to autofocus. Especially with the tiny and dark viewfinder which has absolutely no split prism and is nearly impossible to get in focus like on the D40. It's simple as that. The camera is simply not good value for money for anyone who intends to venture outside of the point and shoot arena and actually may one day own more than 1 lens.

Garbz,

You cannot, as far as I know, mount pre-AI lenses on the D300 and D3 because the AI coupler could get damaged - this applies to most Nikon bodies with the exception of those made before AI, and the F3, F4, F6, D40 and D40x. (What company to be in!) There are cheap, good lenses among those, including the 28 mm f/3.5 that was offered here recently. That, to me, means that there are more lenses that can be mounted on the D40 than on the D3 and D300, not less. As an aside, there are many times when I wish that my fancy new lenses had simple depth of field scales on them, it being easy enough to make the adjustment for the cropped sensor.

By providing these facts, rather than opinions, other people can make their own minds up. It isn't a matter of 'defending the D40 in all terms'. Some of us think that the D40 has advantages as well as disadvantages. Different people have different requirements, so as I wrote way back in this thread, one size does not fit all.

Most of what you have written in the above post is only your opinion. I think that I've ventured outside the point and shoot arena, and my opinion is that the D40x has been very good value for money for me. I don't need autofocus and autoexposure. Though the viewfinder isn't as large and bright as others, I found it usable with most of my manual focus lenses even before I did the surprisingly simple $30 upgrade to a K3 screen. I'm not saying that everyone will find the manual focusing usable on the D40 for all conditions. I think that it should be left to the individual to decide whether or not the D40 or D40x is right for them.

Best,
Helen